Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 11 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Silicon Valley

Washington, D.C.

In a 2-1 decision on May 7, 2026, a three-judge U.S. Court of International Trade (&ldquo;CIT&rdquo;) panel <a href="https://filehost.thompsonhine.com/uploads/gov.uscourts.cit.19559.49.0_d98f.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">struck down</a> the Trump administration&rsquo;s implementation of Section 122 tariffs (see <a href="https://www.thompsonhinesmartrade.com/2026/02/president-trump-implements-temporary-import-duties-under-section-122-of-the-trade-act-of-1974-and-continues-the-suspension-of-duty-free-de-minimis-exception-for-international-shipments/">Update of February 23, 2026</a>).
The 10% tariff on a wide range of imported goods, the panel reasoned, extended beyond President Trump&rsquo;s power to address any &ldquo;balance-of-payments&rdquo; deficit, as provided under the statute. The judges, however, declined to block the Section 122 tariff nationwide, limiting their decision to imported goods of certain plaintiffs appearing before them.
The CIT&rsquo;s decision covered challenges to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 brought by Democratic party state officials and a coalition of private importers. Two members of the three-judge panel agreed with the plaintiffs&rsquo; claims that the Trump administration misused a statutory power meant to deal with a balance-of-payments problem instead of a trade-in-goods deficit.
Senior Judge Timothy Stanceu wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing that any decision is premature because it is based on the plaintiffs&rsquo; initial request for a preliminary injunction.

CIT Panel Strikes Down Trump Administration’s Section 122 Tariffs

Services